[chaffneue]

And it's not even good or recommended as a cache at any kind of profile. So I guess their most valuable niche is low traffic/prototype sites with poor architecture discipline or genuinely unrelated data sets. There are so much better tools for caching (memcached/redis), durable persistent storage (postgres), session storage (memcached/redis/browser hybrids) and document storage (postgres). Mongo is just one of those brands that quickly solved a problem that most of the better technologies missed - the user interface.

[tracker1]

I think being able to have flexible data storage with indexing is where they are better than most other options. There's something to be said for some of what they do offer. I was able to replace the search system for a site that used SQL to MongoDB, which often includes geolocation, it works fairly well, I had considered using a ElasticSearch, or something similar, Mongo was a better fit.

Today, I would be inclined to use PostgreSQL with JSON support, and some triggers to update an aggregate search table, or look more seriously towards RethinkDB.

With any NoSQL system you give up something.. you just need to be aware of what you are giving up, why and for what gains.